THE HINDU was banned by the Nizam of Hyderabad following publication of a series of articles on the state by St. Nihal Singh, its well-known Correspondent and contributor. THE HINDU: “The fierce light of publicity which has been shed on Hyderabad must have been to it in the nature of a sunbath but apparently it is not so regarded by the wise administrators who contrive the destinies of that state. If they have nothing to hide why should they be afraid of honest criticism? Can it not be reasonably inferred that what they fear is not criticism but publicity? Commonsense would demand that if there are defects they should remedy them or explain them away; that if they have done good they should not hide their achievements under a bushel”.
SEPTEMBER 20, 1923
Hyderabad – of the Middle Ages
AN ASSOCIATED PRESS MESSAGE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE ANNOUNCES that His Exalted Highness the Nizam has proscribed THE HINDU from his dominion. In the case of Indian rulers who are a law unto themselves, one may ask in vain for reasons for this or that step, as one will look in vain for either reason or justice or consistency in their actions. It may however be presumed, since THE HINDU has not hitherto stood between the wind and His Exalted Highness’s nobility, that the articles recently contributed by Mr. St. Nihal Singh to these columns and the controversy over them have contrived to upset the equanimity of His Exalted Highness and his only less exalted advisers. These articles need not be introduced anew to our readers. They speak for themselves and we have no doubt have considerably edified them. That it was possible for them to give offence we now learn for the first time from the action of the one person to whom they ought most to have appealed. For what are these articles? They are by a gentleman, a trained journalist of considerable standing and repute. Mr. Nihal Singh is no stranger either to the readers of THE HINDU or to the Indian and Anglo-Indian Press in general. His position as a journalist is perhaps unique for an Indian for he is perhaps the only Indian to whom the columns of the British Press are open in any large measure. This is a fact of no small significance when one remembers how reluctant the British Press, even the best section of it, is to discuss Indian affairs or to afford opportunity for a fair presentation of the Indian side of the question. Within the limits of his opportunities Mr. Nihal Singh has been performing this task with a signal measure of success. But there is a further fact connected with the episode that throws a lurid light on the mentality of those who have sought vicariously to punish his too great daring. He was for several months a guest of the State and of Sir Ali Imam. He was allowed to go everywhere, see everything, and every facility was afforded to him for his observations. There was, however, apparently one mental reservation. He was to take notes, but he was not to print them. At least, if he did, he was to exercise a wise discrimination and respect the unwritten firman. “Of the Nizam thou shalt speak nothing but praise.” Not being of that order of journalists which believes in repaying hospitality with flattery laid on with a trowel, Mr. Nihal Singh thought he was free to express what he really thought. His articles speak for themselves. No one who has gone through them will for a moment feel that the writer has set down aught in malice, or deny that his sole malice, or deny that his sole object has been to point out defects where they exist, to give credit where it is due, with the object of remedying these shortcomings. There is nothing in them that any ruler ought to resent. He may think the estimate wrong but he cannot deny that it is honest. Now we hold no brief for Mr. Nihal Singh’s views and conclusions. His conclusions may be right or wrong. His picture may be overdrawn or the reverse. We leave that to those who are in touch with Hyderabad affairs to discuss. As a matter of fact, as the columns of THE HINDU will show, Mr. Singh has met with as considerable a measure of criticism as of support and in the former category are included many who have no official axes to grind and who are not impelled by virtue of their official position to act as self-appointed publicity agents for His Exalted Highness. It will thus be seen that the exalted ruler has no grievance real or imaginary either against THE HINDU or against Mr. Singh. The latter is one whom he himself delighted to honour but a short time back. Unless it is suggested that the feeding was for the purpose of keeping his mouth more usefully or less dangerously employed, it cannot be made an accusation against Mr. Singh that he bit the hand that fed him. As for THE HINDU His Exalted Highness’s attitude is even more extraordinary, THE HINDU was fulfilling one of the ordinary and legitimate duties of a journal by ventilating public affairs. It cannot be said that it was either unfair or one sided. Defenders of the Hyderabad regime had as ready access to its columns as its critics. What then was the object of the proscription? “Thrice blessed are the people who have no grievances, but four times they who are deprived of the means of expressing them”; can it be that that has been exalted into an article of faith by His Exalted Highness? It would seem that the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the action of the Hyderabad authorities is that they have no use for anything so new-fangled as public opinion, just as they have no use for methods of action which are favoured in countries which remain unblessed with paternal government of the Hyderabad type. Much as they may hate being dragged into the garish light of day, from the grim religious light where tinsel can flaunt it undetected, they cannot in the conditions of modern progress have their own undisputed way. The fierce light of publicity which has been shed on Hyderabad must have been to it in the nature of a sunbath but apparently it is not so regarded by the wise administrators who control the destinies of that state. If they have nothing to hide why should they be afraid of honest criticism? Can it not be reasonably inferred that what they fear is not criticism but publicity? Commonsense would demand that if there are defects they should remedy them or explain them away; that if they have done good, they should not hide their achievements under a bushel. But the uncommon sense of Hyderabad thinks elsewise. The matter raises an issue of vital importance to the Indian Press. An action so far divorced from reason, justice and commonsense, an action such as not the most sun-dried bureaucrat in the most backward regions of British India would dare to take, brings into fierce prominence the position of the Indian Press vis-a-vis the Indian States. It was only the other day that a journal so consistently loyal and friendly to Indian States as the Amrita Bazar Patrika was surreptitiously forbidden entry into Patiala because like the rest of the Indian Press it displayed a lively interest in the Nabha abdication. Now THE HINDU is proscribed from Hyderabad because it is displaying an unhealthy, or shall we say, morbid curiosity in the tangled skeins of Hyderabad politics. We hold that it is in itself an act of gross maladministration to put a ban on the entry of honest journals into the State without any sort of notice or warning to the alleged offender. If the Indian Press makes an unfair attack on a ruler he can revenge himself on it not only in his own State but in British India. Why should such protection as in the Princes’ Protection Bill, which was thrust through the teeth of an unwilling Assembly, be afforded to States which are not only object lessons in things as they ought not to be but are at liberty to launch an offensive against any journal without the faintest shadow of justification? This is a matter which it is the duty of the whole Press of India, whatever may be its individual political complexion, to take up.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I